Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 606 posts

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#31

Post by missosoup »

gamblor956 wrote: post #12
bryan_w wrote: post #10

The same free speech that is protecting racists today is the same one that prevented Gay people from being censored in the 90s for their "deviant" behavior.

Is your statement intended to be ironic? Gay people were heavily censored in the early 90s outside of cities like San Francisco and West Hollywood. It wasn't until Will and Grace premiered in 1998 that the needle began moving toward acceptance.

Acceptance of an idea is not at all the same thing as the ability to express an idea.

Free speech protects the expression of ideas, no matter how disagreeable or vile some demographics may find them. And LGBT ideology was certainly viewed as vile by the majority of the population for many decades and would have been completely stomped out from discourse if not for free speech protections. Want to see what would have happened to the LGBT community without strong free speech protection? Look no further than Russia.

The necessary cost of free speech is allowing speech one disagrees with. People who enjoy the benefits of free speech but fail to understand this core tenet boggle my mind.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#32

Post by zeveb »

monocasa wrote: post #17
ChristianBundy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Data scientist fired for retweeting study showing non-violent protests are more effective This is a blatant misrepresentation. The tweet talked about "race riots" and Democrat election results. Many people would argue that the point of direct action is not to sway electoral votes toward the Democratic party.

And particularly, that election was in the middle of the southern strategy switch, and the Democratic party didn't define itself as the left wing of acceptable politics in the nation as it does today. Particularly the Southern Democrats hadn't overwhelmingly converted over to Republicans yet. It was only after the Civil Rights Act was passed (which was six days into the race riots mentioned, so real actionable change…

> It was only after the Civil Rights Act was passed (which was six days into the race riots mentioned, so real actionable change that came from them)

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law on the second of July 1964, had been in the works since before Mr. Kennedy's (unrelated) assassination in 1963; it passed the House 290–130 and the Senate 73–27: I really doubt that six days' rioting can be credited with passing it.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#33

Post by smt88 »

drtillberg wrote: post #27
fennecfoxen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The world, in general, is abandoning the past two centuries in which freedom has risen, to become illiberal, and enforce intellectual orthodoxies. It is more obvious and markedly so in in places like Turkey, but even here in the US we see those who would blacklist all political enemies and dissenters. These efforts will ultimately fail here, but not before grave harm is inflicted; history will judge us as harshly as…

A chaplin recently had to resign in apology at a distinguished academic institution for ... making factual and insightful comments about the George Floyd incident.[1] McCarthy eventually was shamed and disgraced by his casual destructiveness. "Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" [1] https://nypost.com/2020/06/17/mit-chaplain-resigns-over-em…

Saying someone "didn't live a virtuous life" is not factual. In this case, it's an irrelevant and tasteless opinion about a victim. It implies Floyd somehow deserved to be shot in the back and killed.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#34

Post by cwhiz »

Shouting people down in public and on the internet doesn’t change opinions. People just talk more quietly or take more care with whom they share their thoughts and opinions.

Cancel culture, outrage culture, and the general “social justice” movement is not much more than a wide scale attempt to silence dissenting thought. Build your own bubble, and shout down anyone who thinks or speaks differently. Yell and call it “offensive.” The genius of it is you get to decide what’s offensive, and move the goalposts as you see it. Brilliant!

Once you’ve successfully filled your world with only viewpoints that you don’t find problematic, you can be shocked when a man like Donald Trump wins the Presidency.

People in the United States need to thicken up. Learn to hear a thought different from your own. Stop retreating into a stupid safe bubble where your thoughts and ideas don’t have to be challenged. Grow up.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#36

Post by bachmeier »

bryan_w wrote: post #10

The same free speech that is protecting racists today is the same one that prevented Gay people from being censored in the 90s for their "deviant" behavior.

> The same free speech that is protecting racists today is the same one that prevented Gay people from being censored in the 90s for their "deviant" behavior.

You mean the guys I went to college with that went into a bar together and got beat up for it?

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#37

Post by missosoup »

cwhiz wrote: post #34

Shouting people down in public and on the internet doesn’t change opinions. People just talk more quietly or take more care with whom they share their thoughts and opinions. Cancel culture, outrage culture, and the general “social justice” movement is not much more than a wide scale attempt to silence dissenting thought. Build your own bubble, and shout down anyone who thinks or speaks differently. Yell and call it “…

This is an excellent summary of what's going on.

Firing, cancelling, and silencing anyone with a 'bad' opinion doesn't convert them to a 'good' one. Instead it makes them more hostile and causes them to double down. I'm pretty confused how America keeps going down this path even after an actual 50% of the entire population revolted against the 'good' ideologies and voted in Trump with religious fervour.

Pretending that people with different views don't exist, or that their views don't matter, doesn't make those views go away. Marginalising and attacking people for views they hold just hardens their resolve.

Re: Those who exercise free speech should also defend it even when it’s offensive

#38

Post by dx87 »

newacct583 wrote: post #18
rbecker wrote: post #2

Just in case someone finds the examples in the article all acceptable censorship, here's a few more off the top of my head: Evergreen professor forced to resign for opposing day of white absence: https://blog.usejournal.com/the-controversy-of-bret-weinstei... UCLA professor placed under investigation for reading MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail": https://freebeacon.com/issues/university-to-investigate-lect... Dat…

Your first example isn't about speech. The school had a policy of a white absence day (which is batshit, but whatever) and he expressly violated that as an act of protest and got fired for breaking the rules. He'd been clearly opposed to it from the start and not censored. Be very careful with that second link, that story was spun like crazy in conservative circles, and even weeks later it's impossible to find an acc…

The first example says the school didn't make it mandatory for white people to stay home, it was just highly recommended. It doesn't look like he broke any rules, the school had just hoped everyone would fall in line and he was fired for not agreeing with them.
Post reply on HN